Donations, But At What Cost? (Political party funding)

Member Name: jatkinson100

Product:	Political party funding
Date:	21/02/02 (73 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Help the party you want to win, if you have the money, you get what you want

Disadvantages: Open to abuse after abuse after abuse

Scandals of various natures have surrounded every government since my birth (1977), so why should the politicians stop now? Labour are New Labour are the New Tories... scandal abounds and the politicians keep covering things up, so what is the difference with the new scandals the surround the Blairites?

The Tories, especially though not exclusively, were found out on numerous occassions for improperly gaining money to line the MPs own pocket. A bad lot, indeed, but the difference between the Tories' Cash for Questions and Labour's Cash for Whatever You Want is fundamentaly different, because big business, and big businssmen, can buy the Labour Party, and therefore the government of one of the richest and most powerful nations on earth (yes, the UK).

Recently, people donating to the Labour Party have gained far more than they donated, and have gained as a direct result, it would seem, of their donation. Bernie Ecclestone was the first high profile donator to come under scrutiny. Why would he donate cash - rich, self made, entreprenuring, surely he is as blue as Portillo, but it appears not. The Government said that cigarette advertising should be banned. It would be phased out completely, but the starting point would be sport. No sports person should be sponsered by or endorse tobacco products, leading to a change in, among others, the sponsors of Snooker and Rugby League's main, showpiece events. Formula 1, of which our Bernie is the owner, has not had to remove all of the tobacco advertising frm the bonnets, bumpers and bodies of its cars and drivers. The cynical amognst you, of which I am, proudly, one, may believe that Mr Ecclestone's massive contribution to the Labour Party, and subsequent meeting with Mr Blair, may have had something to do with this. I, of course, am not here to lead you either way, but... ask yourself if Mr Ecclestone's donation had anything to do with him being granted an audience with Mr Blair,
and if his meeting and donation had any bearing on Labour's decision to ban ALL tobacco sponsorship in All sports, except for Formula 1? Formula 1 is one of the world's richest sports, and recieves a great amount of its sponsorship from the tobacco industry. Why was it made an exception to the government's rule?

"I'll see you now, Mr Vaz"... The famous Hinduja brothers are/were Indian tycoons, and were granted a British passport after making a large contribution to the Labour Party. This granting of a passport came after the Home Office were made to understand, by Mr Vaz, that this application for citizenship was to be accepted. Perhaps Mohammed Al-Fayed should've donated to Labour instead of trapping poor Mr Hamilton. It would appear that, had he done so, he would now be the proud owner of Britich citizenship and and lovely blue (OK, red, European) British passport. Mr Vaz recently admitted that he had acted imapproriately, appologised to The House of Commons, and was suspended from the House for a few weeks. The Hinduja Brothers kept their passports, and the party kept their money, and Mr Vaz gets a few weeks off of work. Nice one!!!!

And so for the latest, but I'm sure not the last, scandal regarding Cash for Favour - an Indian businessman who is head of a multinational comapany, with a less than perfect history, gives a donation to labour and receives a letter from Tony Blair supporting him in the purchase of Romania's newly privatised steel industry. This would help a British company, is good for Romania and good for the UK, supposedly. The UK steel industry is in a poor state, and is already being outpriced by foreign countries who have more liberal views on working hours, wages and standards of safety, so why would we want to encourage more competition? Oh yeah, this is a British company, right? Errr, well, if that's what you think, Mr Blair. The company actually only employs around 10
0 people in the UK. But, if it improves, restructures, and makes more efficient Romainia's steel industry, Romania's economy will grow, and soon enough they'll be buying stuff from us, right? Ah, well, this is the same company that took control of Ireland's steel industry, guaranteed it would keep it up and running until May of last year, and then closed it, owing millions of pounds, in June 2000, so, no, it is unlikely to stabalise and strengthen Romania's steel industry or economy.

All of these scandals have been reported in the press, and questions on each subject have been asked in the Commons, and Mr Blair has politely (and sometimes not so politely) refused to give an answer, to refute or accept the allegations. He has simply noted that the Tories used to do it, so they are casting the stone in order to blacken Labour's good name. The truth is, it could appear that Labour have seen the Tories do it in previous governments, and have decided to take their slice of the cake. If the Tories did it, why can't we - and anything they can do, we can do bigger, better, and for far, far, far more cash. If you want something done, pay up and we'll do it - Labour are the Party for You, if you do.

On the other hand, if there was nothing to get out out of donating, why would people do it? If you give money, you want something back, it's a fact. Before, however, you gave cash to the Party who endorsed your beliefs, and you gave to the party that wanted what you wanted - now, however, it would seem that, for the right price, Labour will change their beliefs, their promises, and the government of the UK's policies.

You want a passport? Pay up! You want a letter from the PM saying you are an excellent business prospect? Pay up! Whatever you want, you got it, with Labour (Burger King Policies) plc.

Summary: